Become a patron of CieloDrive.com. Click here to learn more
Monday, July 17, 1978
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE FOR
DOWNLOAD IN THE FOLLOWING FORMATS
INITIAL PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY RELEASE BOARD
In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
CDC Number: W-08314
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN
MONDAY, JULY 17, 1978
MR. R.V. De LEON, PRESIDING MEMBER
MS. RUTH RUSHEN, BOARD MEMBER
MR. ROBERT DEL PESCO, HEARING REPRESENTATIVE
MR. RALPH C. DUENAS, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE
For Inmate Krenwinkel:
MR. S. DANA GILBERT, Esq.
357 WEST 2nd STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
For the People of the State of California:
STEPHEN KAY, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: This is a life parole consideration hearing for Patricia Krenwinkel, CDC Number CIW-8314, and we are at the California Institution for Women on July the 17th, 1978. The time is 2:37 p.m. It will be necessary for us, Miss Krenwinkel, to go around the room and identify ourselves, everybody here, for the purposes of the record. I will start, we’ll go to my right. When we get to you, if you will spell your last name and give your inmate number. My initials are R.V., last name De Leon, capital D-e capital L-e-o-n and I’m a member of the Community Release Board.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Ruth Rushen, R-u-s-h-e-n, Board Member.
MR. DEL PESCO: Robert Del Pesco, D-e-l P-e-s-c-o, Hearing Reprensentative for the Board.
MR. KAY Stephen Kay, S-t-e-p-h-e-n, K-a-y, and I’m a Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles.
MR. GILBERT: Dana Gilbert, G-i-l-b-e-r-t, attorney for the Defendant.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Pat Krenwinkel, Krenwinkel K-r-e-n-w-i-n-k-e-l. My number is 8314.
MR. DUENAS: My name is Ralph C. Duenas, D-u-e-n-a-s. I’m a staff representative, CC-I.
MR. GILBERT: Before you start, may I ask a question of the Board?
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. In the confidential case record that you examined, at least the one that we looked at, certain confidential items were deleted from the record for our examination. Did the Board read and consider these confidential matters? I’m referring specifically to a document which I signed, Central File Examination Requested by Attorney of Record which is a list of approximately five deleted items which indicated they were deleted from the C file. It had to do with medical reports, psychological examinations and the like.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Yes, that same inclusion is found within the reports that the Panel has reviewed and none of the confidential records are included in our reports. Where it states that they are in a separate file, we did not review those.
MR. GILBERT: Okay, fine. The reason I was asking was, because --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You were referring only to this. I think we would need to check these other four. I’m not sure about the psychiatric reports. This one is one I think we were discussing.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, if a report of a comment is included in our record, it is not confidential, if it is included as a part of our record. There are statements, documents in our folder that state, that allude to confidential information which is not included within this folder. Now, as to the interim medical report dated 4/3/72, I have to go back over the record again to see if that is included. And I’d ask my fellow Panel members to do the same thing.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Give us just a minute.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: 4/3/72 and the psychological report of 5/24/71.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Counselor, did you get a copy of the cumulative summary? That would be the inclusive dates of 6/29/71 through ‘78?
MR. GILBERT: I have one dated 6/29/71 and I’ve got one running through 5/1978.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right. I think the quickest way to do this is just, let’s start. You have page two that starts with “circumstances of the offense”?
MR. GILBERT: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right. Then, you have the CII report?
MR. GILBERT: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: And you have the face sheet dated 7/20/71?
MR. GILBERT: Yes. Oh, right.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right. Then, you have “Social Evaluation,” dated 7/20/71?
MR. GILBERT: Which consists of five pages.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Okay. One, two, three, four, five, all right. And then, you have a page nine called, “Custodial Evaluation”?
MR. GILBERT: Right.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: And then you have Exhibit D, “Notice,” page ten and eleven?
MR. GILBERT: Oh yes, I have that.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right. And then you have Exhibit D, “Notice,” page twelve, thirteen, and fourteen?
MR. GILBERT: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: And then you have a “Psychiatric Evaluation” and the date on the bottom of the page is 5/14/71 and the number is fifteen? The number of the page is fifteen and in parenthesis one?
MR. GILBERT: Yes, that consists of two pages.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right.
MR. GILBERT: By Joseph Roth. I have a “Psyche Evaluation,” dated 6/7/71 consisting of --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: That’s pages what, Counselor?
MR. GILBERT: Seventeen through twenty.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right.
MR. GILBERT: Four pages dated by Michael B. Coburn, M.D., and I have a “Psychiatric Evaluation,” one page in length, dated November 21 by R.V. Hensley. I have a “Report of Superintendent,” page twenty-two and “Report of the Associate Superintendent,” page twenty-three, and “Report of the Chaplain,” page twenty-four. I have a “RGC Staff Recommendation,” page twenty-five. And then, I’ve got “Social Evaluation,” again on page twenty-six through thirty. And then, I’ve got a “Psychological Evaluation,” pages thirty-one and thirty-two, an “Interim Summary,” dated 3/31/72. And I’ve got another “RGC Staff Recommendation,” pages thirty-three, thirty-four, and thirty-five.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Okay.
MR. GILBERT: “Total Evaluation,” page thirty-six and “Annual Report,” page thirty-seven, “Report to the Board on Terms of Parole,” page thirty-eight, and another “Psychiatric Evaluation for the Full Board,” pages thirty-nine and forty. Another “Report to the Board on Terms of Parole,” is September of ‘74, page forty-one and forty-two. And another “Psychiatric Evaluation,” Jule of ‘74, pages forty-three and forty-four, and another, September ‘75, “Report to the Board on Terms of Parole,” page forty-five and forty-six. And then I’ve got another “Psychiatric Evaluation,” dated August 28, ‘75, pages forty-seven and eight. Another “Psyche Evaluation,” July 21st of ‘76, forty-nine, fifty, and fifty-one. And another “Report to the Board of Parole,” September ‘76, pages fifty-two and fifty-three, “Psychiatric Evaluation,” September, ‘77 calendar, and that’s two pages in length. Another “Psychiatric Evaluation,” dated May 18th of this year. No page date, but it appears to be two pages in length. And then, the last thing I have is a “CIW Release Board Apply for Hearing,” page twenty, no page.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Then, on the other side, you have the letters --
MR. GILBERT: I have a letter from Chief Davis, a letter from Charles Older, a notice to P. Fitzgerald, two notice to him. One to Chief Davis, one to another P. Fitzgerald, another to J.P. Busch. I’ve got what looks like sentence information, showing a need to set a parole date of 2/16/77, minium date, I guess.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Parole dated MEPD?
MR. GILBERT: That’s two pages. I’ve got a “Parole Decision” which consists of two pages, three pages, excuse me. And then, I’ve got another what looks like --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: What went on at the hearing?
MR. GILBERT: Yes, then two pages, I’ve got some typed “Evaluation, Appearing Staff Representative,” which is three pages, a notice that something's been removed from the file date 1/27/75. One of those, and I’ve got an “Evaluation of Hearing by Staff Representative,” dated 9/7/73, two pages. I’ve got an “Evaluation,” three pages. And another “Evaluation,” and then I’ve got a document, “Parole Board,” dated June of ‘76.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: What was that, Counsel?
MR. GILBERT: I’ve got a document to the Parole Board, dated --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Is this by way of statements and/or recommendations, Section 120301?
MR. GILBERT: Right. That’s one page. And I’ve got another letter, two pages, from Stephen S. Trott, Deputy District Attorney. A letter from Tom Bradley, consists of two pages signed by Daryl F. Gates. A letter from Sheriff Peter J. Pitchess with an attached news release. It consists of a total of four pages. And I’ve got what looks like a Sheriff Buckingham --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Do you have the Probation Officer’s report?
MR. GILBERT: Yes, I have the Probation Officer’s report, eleven pages.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, he has everything that we have with the exception of this one portion here and he may want to speak to that. That’s it.
MR. GILBERT: The reason I ask this is because, when I signed that, it was with the knowledge of the fact that there were five things pulled out of the C file and were looked at. By counting the number of pages that showed, indicating that things had been pulled, it came out to about twelve. And I was just wondering where the other seven or eight, what were they that were pulled out? I looked through the C file that she had and there were these documents that said note, something has been pulled out of our file because it was deemed to be confidential. And it’s not even listed on that document. And I was just trying to determine whether or not you actually received it or not.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Well, it appears that everything that we have, you have.
MR. GILBERT: Okay, fine.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: And we’ve reviewed the file and there do not appear to be any problems or contradictions with the exceptions of the one, this portion of the incident report which we will show you that we have. You state here, portions of incident report dated 1/28/77 deemed confidential due to the security of the institution. You have that report, Mrs. Rushen?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Yes, this is this report, but the report is favorable to your client in that, there was no evidence connecting her with the incident. But the nature of the reports is such that it would not be safe for other inmates nor your client to see it. But it is not prejudicial towards your client.
MR. GILBERT: Thank you very much.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, Miss Krenwinkel, this hearing is being conducted pursuant to Penal Code Section 3041 and 3042 and the regulations of the Community Release Board governing parole consideration hearings for life prisoners will prevail at this hearing. Now, the purpose of today’s hearing is to consider your suitability for parole. Now, it’s necessary for us to conduct this hearing under revised procedures established by the Legislature effective July 1st, 1977 which are applicable to all prisoners under a life sentence.
We will be considering the nature of the crime which committed you to State Prison, your criminal history or lack of it prior to your commitment to State Prison or to the incident that led to your commitment to State Prison, and then we will reach a decision as to whether or not you’re suitable for parole, and if not, why. Also if you are found suitable, why you are found suitable, the length of your confinement, and we’re going to cover that, and the specific factors leading to the determination of the Panel, why we made the decision.
Now, the hearing is going to proceed in the following manner: I am going to review the preconviction factors, the incident that led to your conviction, the crime that led to your conviction. And Ms. Rushen will cover postconviction factors, everything that you have done within the institution. And you know, that is important to us in making our decision, every facet of your postconviction activities. And Mr. Del Pesco will cover your parole plans that you might have and how you have prepared yourself for that and all factors surrounding any parole consideration.
Now, there’s no need to consider the incidents or discuss the incidents that did not involve a conviction or that were dismissed for whatever reason prior to the case that brought you here. There were no convictions for these other incidents as you know. Now, we have a Deputy District Attorney present from Los Angeles County, and what we’re going to do, this is not an adversary hearing. And we will not permit this hearing to develop into an adversary hearing. And so, we will permit the Deputy District Attorney to make a statement, whatever you would like, at the beginning and then at the close, before counsel for Miss Krenwinkel makes his final statement. Now is that satisfactory, Counsel?
MR. GILBERT: Yes, sir. May I ask a question before we proceed?
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. I’m not that familiar with some of the rules and regulations, but I was under the impression that there had to be a two-weeks written notice before a District Attorney can appear and be heard.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: It is a policy of the Board that we give two weeks notice if possible, but we also have the right to reserve whether to let the D.A. in if that notice has not been given. When were you notified?
MR. GILBERT: I was notified over a month ago.
MR. KAY Who was notified a month ago?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: No, when were you notified that the D.A. would be here?
MR. GILBERT: When he walked up and said, Hi, I’m the D.A., this afternoon.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: We’re sorry about that. That can happen in these cases. We’re all just getting started Counsel, wand we’ll do our best.
MR. KAY I might say for the record that I was notified last week about the hearing on Susan Atkins which is to take place after this hearing today. I called out to Frontera to ask them what time the hearing would start and they said it would start as soon as Patricia Krenwinkel’s hearing was finished. And I said, we didn’t even receive notice that Patricia Krenwinkel was going to have her hearing; and at that time, I said I would like to attend that hearing. And he told me where it would be and here I am today. So, I found out last Wednesday, I believe it was, about both hearings.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: We apologize to you, too, Counsel, and we hope that this matter will get straightened out.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, Miss Krenwinkel; did you receive notice of this hearing thirty days ago?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I knew this hearing would be held. I was just given notice only about five days ago, though, of my attorney, and I had no idea that Mr. Kay would be here at all. So, I had no -- you know, I was not -- I’m not prepared for that. I spoke with my attorney yesterday and today. I mean, yeah, Saturday and today. But I was only really given notice form my attorney who said that he was going to represent me five days ago.
MR. GILBERT: Some of that statements we’re making are obviously for the record. We’re prepared to proceed at this time.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: We have one to make for the record. The law was not changed until, I believe it was effective July 1 to allow your counsel to represent you today. So that’s another reason we’re all in the process of just getting the forms and everything rolling. It’s a new law.
MR. GILBERT: Well, I understand that. I have an objection that the rules say that the people will be notified at least a month in advance, obviously to give them time to submit documentation for your consideration; and some people have. I’m wondering whether that gives an unfair advantage to one side, the prosecution, because they are the same people that were involved in the original trial, given a shot at least a month in advance to put in their two cents worth. I realize there’s no rules governing such. And then, counsel for the defendant comes in at the last minute and is faced with basically this problem. And I wonder if it’s true and fair to the defendant to allow this stuff to come in. You know, all these considerations were supposedly made at the time of the original sentencing. And in this case, it’s been over eight years ago. There’s no indication in any of this thing that they have any recent knowledge of what’s going on. And all this sounds like, you know, it’s pretty much standardized responses. So we feel that it would be unfair to our client.
Also I might make a point that, in this particular case and this is just to make a point that, apparently somehow the word’s gotten out that there is an infamous or famous person being heard today, because the news media now, like bloodhounds, are hot on the trail. And when I first got into this thing, there was no mention of trial by media or anything like that, picking up on this hearing. And I don’t know whether or not they’ve contacted you or not. I’m just concerned. I feel the Board should deliberate uninfluenced by what may or may not have happened in recent or far distant past or because of the fact that my client happens to be somebody who the newspapers happen to make good press over. At least one person has made a small fortune on it.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: All right. Let me try to address those issue one at a time. The response form the District Attorney and the Judge are very familiar documents to all the Panel members. We receive documents and sometimes, as you say, the content of the document would appear something that might be applicable say, twenty years before. Say the incident had occurred twenty years before as in some cases that we have or twenty-five or even thirty years before, and we have those types of response from Judges and District Attorneys. And you also receive a copy of the same document that we received. And the Panel gives these documents and statements therein, I believe, the weight that they deserve. You know, with consideration, as you say, of the fact that they are long removed and they do not have access to all of the materials, and, you know, the postconvctions factors and so on, and staff records, custody records, institutional documents and so forth, and the facts that the Panel has available to it. But we take it in its weight and we give it the weight that we feel that it deserves in the perspective of the entire totality of all circumstances that prevail in that particular case.
We’ve had no reports and no concern with the news media. I have heard of -- I personally have heard no interest, and I will ask my fellow Panel members if they have been approached or heard any discussion. I have heard nothing by any media whatsoever in regard to this case. I was not aware that we were going to hear this particular case today, and gave it no consideration. And it will be evaluated in the same manner as any other case considering the circumstances involved and all other factors.
MR. GILBERT: I understand.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Does the Panel have anything to say?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I don’t have any comments.
MR. DEL PESCO: Counsel is looking at me for a reply. I also heard nothing. Yours was the first time that I heard about the news interest. And in fact, I was told before lunch, trying to get our cases ready, that our case after lunch was Krenwinkel. And frankly, I didn’t even associate it. It was just another name. And I started reading the file and I realized who it was.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: That’s true. I also heard the name and it didn’t mean a thing to me until I started reading the file and then I thought it was related to a particular case.
MR. GILBERT: Thank you, sir.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, we will go into the preconviction factors. All the preconviction factors deal with the murders involved. And so ordinarily, I would have you make your statement prior to going into this. But I do not see the necessity for repetition, if there is some repetition. So we will go into this first, and then you may make your opening statement. And then, you know, your closing statements later, after we’ve gone into the preconviction, postconviciton and parole considerations. Now, Miss Krenwinkel, in the case that brought you here, you were convicted for the killing of Abigail Folger which occurred on August the 9th, 1969 at 10050 Cielo Drive in Los Angeles, and involved the deaths of Abigail Folger with multiple stab wounds, Wojiciech Frykowksi, gunshot in the left back, multiple blood forced trauma to the head.
MR. GILBERT: Could you spell that for the reporter?
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: He was also stabbed. First name spelled W-o-j-i-c-i-e-c-h; last name F-r-y-k-o-w-s-k-i.
Count Three, the killing of Steven Parent, P-a-r-e-n-t with multiple gunshot wounds.
Count Four, killing of Sharon Polanski, P-o-l-a-n-s-k-i, multiple stab wounds.
Count Five, the killing of Jay Sebring, S-e-b-r-i-n-g, multiple stab wounds.
Count Six, Leon LaBianca who was killed on August the 10th, 1969 at 3301 Waverly Drive in Los Angeles, and died of multiple stab wounds to the neck and abdomen.
You were convicted of Count Seven, the killing of Rosemary LaBianca who died of multiple stab wounds to the neck and trunk.
And Count Eight, you were convicted of conspiracy to commit all of the above offenses.
Now, in the case involving Abigail Folger, you chased her out onto the front lawn where you caught her and stabbed her twenty-eight times. You and your crim partner Van Houten, in the case of Rosemary LaBianca, took her into a bedroom, and you stabbed her while your crime partner held her. In this case, you stabbed her forty-one times while your crime partner held her to the floor. You went into the other room where Leno LaBianca was dying where you plunged a fork into his stomach. You then carved the letters “War” on his stomach. Now, using the victim’s blood, you wrote “Death to all pigs,” the words “Helter Skelter,” the word “Arise” on the walls. Then, you and your crime partners which included a man named Watson and a man named Manson and Van Houten all showered, ate a meal in the kitchen before leaving the residence.
Now, would you like to comment on that incident?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: On any of the inaccuracies that I --
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Yes, any inaccuracies or corrections or whatever.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: All right. With Abigail Folger, I chased her out onto the lawn and I stabbed Abigail Folger. How many times, I couldn’t tell you. But at the time I left her body then, I went and I called Tex who went back over to the body and stabbed it then, too.
And as far as the LaBianca house, when I was in the bedroom with Miss LaBianca, I stabbed Miss LaBianca a couple times at which time she fell to the floor and again, I went out and Tex came back in. Because at that time, the weapon that I had would not work. I mean, it was not established. So I went and I called Tex and he went into the bedroom then. And I’m trying to remember, there was something else. I did not write “War” on the man’s stomach. Tex did. I did take the blood off his stomach and I did put the fork into his stomach and I wrote the words on the wall.
MR. GILBERT: When you left LaBianca, was she still alive?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. When I left the room and went for Tex, Miss LaBianca was still alive. And when I left Abigail Folger, she was down on the ground, and I would not know at that time if she was dead or not by my, you know, by my actions. I don’t really know. I do know that Tex also entered that. I’m trying to remember if there was anything else in particular. Yes, the only -- when I was in the Tate house, the only person that I came in contact with with my weapon was Abigail Folger. And any other time, I did not give any kind of injury to any person there.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Were you under the influence of drugs when this occurred? In the first incident, were you under the influence of drugs?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I had taken acid. I had taken acid probably the day or so before and it’s hard to explain what, you know -- I know it goes into the same thing. It’s kind of difficult to explain that the prolonged use of the drug, and it’s not -- when you are continuously taking it at certain times and continuing with it and you never have a time to really come down, and it’s not so much that it’s just the constant influence of the drug but that you never really -- as long as you keep a certain feeling and you never relate to something different, then you kind of maintain that same pattern or that same feeling. And there was definitely use of LSD.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Counsel, we can’t hear you.
MR. GILBERT: Were you under the influence of a drug at the time of this incident?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Did you have any flashbacks?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I don’t think it was a matter of a flashback because there was no -- at that time, there was no back to. It’s hard to explain.
MR. GILBERT: Were you hallucination at the time?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I can say this. I would give the whole incident if, in looking at it at that time, is very much under the same kind of visual perception and hearing that you have under complete -- like, what they would say at, like almost a climax or a high point of acid where it’s a distortion of many things. It either brings things out of the movement or the motion of a certain kind of feeling. That was definitely at that time. But that was happening.
MR. GILBERT: Was there a second incident? Were you involved in it?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I was not under the influence of any drug the second time.
MR. GILBERT: Did you actually take part in the second incident?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: My participation in that was, as I was explaining is that, I was in the room and I stabbed that woman while Leslie held her. I left from the room and I went and I called Tex.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. But, was this two separate incidents, two separate physical locations?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: I’m talking about the second physical location now.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Were you involved in that?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: That’s the one I was in the bedroom.
MR. GILBERT: Oh, okay, fine.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, what was there about your participation in these incidents that would make any similar occurrence, or would make these incidents not repetitive occurrences? You were not under the influence of drugs when you committed these acts. What are the factors that did prevail then that, in your opinion, could prevail again or could never be repeated? You know, the causes, in other words, of the incidents.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: All right. My personal feeling and I believe that it, of course, could never be repeated. I don’t think anything like that could ever happen again. But the situation that developed into that situation was something of a kind of -- well it was like two years of completely alienating myself from any -- it’s hard to find words -- thought patterns or a certain way of living, certain mores, certain feelings that are instilled in someone probably form the day they are born. Those certain things through the process of drugs, through the process of having someone who -- like -- all right, to bring up Charlie, he was someone whose opinion or, I guess, would be opinion or his direction, that I would accept as being totally correct. I would follow that. Now, what happens is, when you get more than -- when you don’t have anyone to say that’s not happening and you have more people doing the same thing, more people saying okay, that’s correct, then you pick it up and you emulate it. It was like taking one -- I don’t know. It was like making popcorn balls or something. You start and you build. And each time, and there’s nothing that ever comes to break it apart. There was never any wedge that stopped it. And each thing reflected upon the other, keeping that whole together.
It was at least two years of myself of being involved in a total change of, I guess, philosophy, whole way of thinking that just started gelling and continued to grow.
MR. GILBERT: If you were walking out of this institution and let’s say, a week later, somebody had the same magnetic personality and you went back into a commune, and two years later coming back and killing another twenty years. What’s to prevent that from happening again?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I know they could certainly never involve me.
MR. GILBERT: Why?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Because I know. I see how that happened. I do not look to someone to give me my thoughts.
MR. GILBERT: Are you saying that you can step aside now and divorce yourself mentally from the emotional acceptance that you’re talking about here and say hey, wait a minute, this is wrong?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Certainly. I mean, it’s a whole amount of growth that, at that time, when I was nineteen years old, I had not really at any time ever been forced to make a decision in my life for myself, and I found it very easy to let someone make my decisions for me continuously. I had never really had any faith in anything, any of my own abilities to learn those lessons that tell you your own yeses and your own noes, the things that give you a whole, that give you the real strength to make your decisions just even -- just in your everyday life, to know this is what you want and this is what you do. I had not tried anything.
I lived in maybe -- when I look back, when I go back through myself and I see just the opening and the wish and the want just to have someone that all of a sudden can take you and tell you, all right, this is the way things are going to be and this is going to be all right. The idea to want to believe in a fantasy or believe in a whole lot of things because the looks of the things around you, you don’t seem to be able to cope with them then. It was a way of trying to find a different way to cope, but it was a slow process of doing that. It seemed well and good in the beginning when you go around and you travel and you just kind of meet people on the road. And I could not find ways in myself of dealing with a whole lot of incidents where I would say, just to watch someone like Charlie be able to deal with that situation, just going in somewhere and being able to talk with somebody and be able to convince them of something or a need or getting this fixed or how to get a tire changed and watching this process happen. And pretty soon, you develop faith in someone by watching them do the things which you think are right. And little by little, you don’t doubt if they say well, the light’s red. And you automatically stop the car. But it’s a process. It’s a continual, it’s a slow process. And it’s also been the same slow process that I have gone through since the day I’ve been incarcerated to go back through it all and look at it bit by bit and see how I would follow each small thing. To me, it’s a very intricate, it’s a very intricate thing. But eventually, you stop and you realize, as you go through the pain of opening up each thing and seeing why you were so weak to be able to do this or believe this, then it seems that that little bit of pain or understanding that you build with yourself, you build, you say yes or no and you understand, and you start to feel confident in your own ability to do what you need to do and to live your life and make your own decisions. It would be impossible for anyone -- I don’t look to anyone to give me an answer, nor do I believe in the immediacy of a world war or a whole lot of different parts of facets of a philosophy that’s quite -- it’s quite large. But I had it at one point. It would be impossible for it to happen now because I have gone through that. I don’t believe you can ever -- there is not a back really that something from that back could catch me again because I’m very well aware of it now. Because I learned it as a painful lesson.
MR. GILBERT: Doesn’t this institution make the major decisions for you now?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, they do make decisions as far as where you reside, if you’re in this room, if you’re in that room, or they make the decision on what you’re going to do.
MR. GILBERT: How about your behavior?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: On your behavior? Not so much because there isn’t -- you can break the rules if you want to. If you feel like you wish to get loaded, there is a way to find that, to bring it to yourself if you want to. If you want to make institutional hooch, you can find a way to do it and still go ahead and do it if you want to, for yourself, if you feel that that’s worth the problem which you’re going to get at the end. It’s a way of evaluating yourself if you want to go through the problems of getting a one-fifteen or a write-up or going to lock-up or those kinds of things. On the whole, you have a certain amount of -- I think the thing I was given where mainly the inmates here may not have been is that I was -- they constructed a small unit wherein there was only three -- actually three of us there except for two other women for a short period of time which they called SSU. And it was a completely locked down unit. And when it began, at its inception when I was under the death penalty, I only came out of my room an hour a day. Now, you’ve got twenty-three hours a day that you sit in a confined area. You either start dealing with your mind or you go mad. I don’t think you have a choice. Because when you’re completely isolated for periods of time, when you constantly sit from day to day, you eventually have to deal with your own head. You can keep telling yourself certain things, but other things come and eventually you go back and remember a past or you remember this. One of the things to keep you from not thinking and which I found like was on e of the things when I was on the road is that, we were continuously busy. As long as you’re continuously busy, you’re not thinking. As along as you’re working hard, you don’t have time to sit down and think well, why did I do this or this. Because you’re constantly busy. But when you’re sitting in a penitentiary for four and a half years in SSU, it wasn’t until the very last we actually had, at that point, been given more than maybe hours where it had gotten to, and then eventually four hours, and then eventually, I think, they let us out of our cells six hours a day.
Well most -- like the women here a lot of times can stay busy into a lot of things in order to keep themselves active. I was not. I was not granted that. So the activity I involved myself in mostly was sitting and thinking I’m sure I’ve thought a whole lot of wrong things. That doesn’t mean I’ve figured out everything. But I’ve sat and I’ve looked at myself a great deal, and not only looking at myself, but I’ve looked at the whole situation as I can see it. It’s just self-evaluation, self-discovery, and it’s quite a process.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Does the Panel have any questions? Miss Rushen?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I don’t have any.
MR. DEL PESCO: I have nothing further.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Does a member of the Staff have anything to say?
MR. DUENAS: No, I don’t.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, Mr. Kay, would you like to make your statement at this time?
MR. KAY All right. Mr. De Leon, I have written a letter last week when I found out about the hearing dated July 13th, 1978. If that can be made a part of the record, then I won’t have to read it as my opening remarks. I’d like to have those as my opening remarks, and I’d like to have a few comments on some things that Miss Krenwinkel has said if that’s all right with the Board?
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Well, you know, since Counsel did not have a copy of your letter prior to this hearing it would be preferable that you would read that or state the contents verbally.
MR. KAY All right. The envelope was addressed to the Community Release Board and the letter states, To Whom It May Concern. In 1970 and 1971, I was a prosecutor of Patricia Krenwinkel for the murders of Sharon Tate, as you called her, Sharon Polanski, that was her married name, her stage name was Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski (That’s how he pronounced it in the United States), Abigail Folger, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca, and Rosemary LaBianca. Since I’m intimately familiar with the role that Miss Krenwinkel played in those murders, I feel it incumbent to speak up and be present at her hearing on July 17th, 1978 where she is to be considered for parole.
I shall attend this hearing not only as a representative of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, but also as a representative of the People of the State of California, the same people I represented when I prosecuted Patricia Krenwinkel eight years ago.
I have spent the past two years prosecuting one of Miss Krenwinkel’s co-defendants, Leslie Van Houten for the LaBianca murder. And as such, I have had numerous occasions recently to review Miss Krenwinkel’s role in both the LaBianca and so-called Tate murders. In my opinion, Miss Krenwinkel was well aware of the gravity of her acts of murder on August 9th and August 10th, 1969. She knew that participating in murder was wrong, but she decided that her loyalty to the Manson family was more important. Miss Krenwinkel had made her decision to participate in the murder even before she and the other members of the family left Spahn Ranch in the late evening hours of August 8th, 1969. Miss Krenwinkel was a very willing participant in the killings at the home of Sharon Tate, and by her own admission at the penalty phase of her trial, stabbed Abigail Folger to death.
Miss Krenwinkel had such a deep remorse for participating in the five murders at Sharon Tate’s home that, when she returned to the getaway car, the only thing she had to say was her hand hurt because, when she stabbed the victim, she kept hitting her bones.
The next day after the Tate murders, Patricia Krenwinkel spent part of the day watching TV news accounts of the murders so she could see what a good job she had done. That night, even knowing of the brutality and destruction of human life that she participated in the night before, she went out on the second night of the murders and participated in the LaBianca murders, actually stabbing both Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Before she left the LaBianca residence, she carved the word “War” w-a-r on the abdomen of Leno LaBianca and also stuck a carving for in his abdomen. She then, in Mr. LaBianca’s blood, wrote the words, “Death to pigs,” “Arise,” and “Helter Skelter,” inside the LaBianca home.
Leslie Van Houten testified at her trial in 1977 that Charles Manson told her that Patricia Krenwinkel was a complete reflection of him, that she was more like him than anyone else in the family.
In my opinion, the main purpose of our prison system is to benefit and protect society. I think we owe it to society not to turn loose a member of the Manson family such as Patricia Krenwinkel who has participated in seven of the most vicious, brutal murders in the history of American crime. The public is very concerned about Patricia Krenwinkel and her co-defendants getting out on parole. I think it would be a great deterrent value to show the public that not everybody who commits murder can automatically get out on parole. The public will certainly feel that if Patricia Krenwinkel gets out on parole, that anybody who commits murder will certainly be paroled. For it is almost impossible to conceive of more vicious murders than those knowingly participated in by Patricia Krenwinkel.
Her seven victims cannot expect parole and neither should she.
That concludes my letter. However, I would like to make a couple of responses to some things that Miss Krenwinkel has said. I agree with her on the stabbing of Abigail Folger that she did not inflict all of the wounds. Watson did inflict some. The evidence showed that she stabbed Abigail Folger until she was dead and then Watson who was about -- oh, ten yards away stabbing Frykowski on the front lawn came over and also stabbed Abigail Folger. But by his testimony, she was already dead. But he just wanted to give some added stab wounds. Frykowski, I might add, was stabbed fifty-one times, to give you any indication of Mr. Watson’s state of mind about the number of stab wounds to inflict.
I think it’s very important, and I’m glad that Mr. De Leon picked up on it, about the fact that Miss Krenwinkel was not under the influence of narcotics or dangerous drugs at the time of the murder. There had been four trials on the Tate-LaBianca murders. The first trial involved Miss Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and Charles Manson. The second trial involved Tex Watson. He fought extradition at the first trial until he had to be charged separately later. And then of the last few years involving Leslie Van Houten, her trial last year ended in a hung jury. Her trial this year resulted in a first degree murder conviction for the murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
The evidence has been that, the only one under the influence of narcotics at all, that Watson took some speed the second night, the night of the LaBianca murder, to pep him up, to wake him up, because he was tired from his participation in the Tate murders. But there was no drug-taking here, and I think that’s important that she knew exactly what was going on. She wasn’t under the influence of any drugs. And I think it’s important, and I think you’ve seen here that she is an intelligent girl. She’s no dummy. She’s had a year of college, before she joined the Manson family in Alabama. She knew what she was getting into. This group was not some hippy flower child group that she found. The evidence has been developed that Manson, from the outset, viewed Adolph Hitler as his hero and talked to the members of the family about Adolph Hitler and that he wanted to construct a master race, Manson did, among members of the family. The family was only open to whites and only whites that he selected. And of course, the motive for these murders was that they were to be blamed on blacks. They wanted to blame the murders on blacks and start a race war. Have the whites take revenge on the blacks and start going down to places like Watts and just shooting the blacks at random. Manson, even at the second night of the murders where Manson went along, he didn’t go the first night. He just sent them out from the Spahn Ranch the first night. But the second night, he went in and took Rosemary LaBianca’s wallet and then tried to plant it in Pacoima which is a section of the San Fernando Valley that has a large black population. His hope was that a black person would find the wallet and use the credit cards in there and get blamed for the murders. He misjudged where Pacomia was and planted the wallet in a gas station in Sylmar which is on the border. Pacomia is the next town from Sylmar and the gas station attendant found it three months later when he was cleaning the rest room. That doesn’t say much for how often they clean the rest rooms. But it was not used by anyone.
Miss Krenwinkel, in knowing agian what she was doing on the second night of the murder, she instructed Leslie Van Houten to wipe off the fingerprints. And I think that’s important to know that, even though they had their separate philosophy in the Manson family about what rules they thought society should follow, they still were very well aware of society’s laws and society’s rules, and they knew that what they were doing was wrong. They knew that, if they got caught, that they would be punished. And I think it’s very instructive, the fact of her instruction to wipe off the fingerprints. I mean, that’s something that we think of in the experience a criminal would think of to get rid of the evidence, so to speak. Her statement about stabbing Rosemary LaBianca, about not inflicting all the wounds to Rosemary LaBianca, from what I know, I think is correct. Leslie Van Houten held Mrs. LaBianca down and Miss Krenwinkel stabbed her on a number of occasions. But according to Van Houten anyway, her knife blade bent, and at that point, Miss Van Houten stated that she called for Watson and Watson came in and had a bayonet, a very large knife, and finished off Mrs. LaBianca although she was already motionless and down on the floor.
So, it could very well be that she was dead after Miss Krenwinkel got finished with her. But Miss Krenwinkel did not inflicted all of the wounds. Leslie Van Houten admitted that she herself inflicted a number of the wounds, although Miss Van Houten said the wounds she inflicted were after Mrs. LaBianca had already died.
Miss Krenwinkel denies now carving “War” in Leno LaBianca’s stomach. To my recollection at the penalty phase of the trial, she admitted that that’s what she did. And Watson at his trial said that that’s what she did. That she actually carved with a carving fork the letters “War” across the abdomen, and then plunged the carving fork into Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen. And there was also a knife embedded into Mr. LaBianca’s throat. The handle stuck out one end and the blade went all the way through, severed the carotid artery and went out the other end. The writing was done by Miss Krenwinkel. “Arise” was the inside part, above the front door. “Death to pigs” was on the living room wall, and “Helter Skelter” was on the refrigerator door.
After the murders, a period of time after the murders when the police started focusing on the family, Miss Krenwinkel fled to Alabama and she had to be extradited from Alabama. When the police tried to arrest her there, she was spotted in a car, saw the police officers and ducked down, trying to, again, avoid detection. But she was apprehended and extradited from Alabama.
Even before the murders which, I think, is important to consider, Manson used to give demonstrations at night at the ranch about how to kill people, where to stab them with the knife and how to put the knife in and jer up on it and the vital points of the body. So the fact that there were murders was no surprise to nobody at the ranch. They were all well aware that there was going to be murders. Miss Krenwinkel knew before she even went out what she was going to participate in, knew it was wrong, but went out and participated in it anyway, not only the first night, but even knowing what happened the first night, went out again the second night and participated and had the wits about her to direct people to do various things in the house.
I might add, the evidence came out in the first trial that, after the Tate murders when they got back to the ranch, again Miss Krenwinkel’s remorse was such that she and Tex Watson made love together when they got back to Spahn Ranch. That was the testimony that came out at the first trial. So with that, I don’t believe -- Miss Krenwinkel said she took acid a day or so before. An acid trip last between eight to twelve house. So even if she had done that, there would have been no residual effects in her at the time. She admits she wasn’t under the influence at the time of either the Tate or LaBianca murders.
I don’t have anything more to add at this time.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Fine. Counsel?
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Well, it’s difficult to retry the case. Obviously it took place over a two or three-year period, and we have a number of different trials, a lot of transcripts. I was just briefly discussing some of the facts with my client. Apparently there are substantial differences in what we understand the facts to be as to what the District Attorney pointed out. And without on an individual basis and simply trying the case over again, it would be difficult to go through them. I would like to make a couple of major points.
First, what I heard from Miss Krenwinkel is a little bit different than what both of you have said. My understanding was that there was a whole series of acid trips that took place over a period of time. And that, as a result of that, there was no need to trip out on an individual basis. I mean, they were in a constant state of high almost all the time. And when this thing went down, that’s what happened. They were in this type of acid euphoria, almost like a realistic-type of behavior where they’re living in another world constant. So I question seriously the statement -- she made the statement that she was, the way I understand it, under the influence. We seemed to pick up differently.
Okay. Secondly, over a period of time, there was a constant eroding of what we would call the independent will of the people involved. You know, a constant, and if Manson was a follower of Hitler, then we would be well aware of how to do this. Because that’s exactly what Hitler did over a period of time by constant repetition, constant assaults on the senses, he overrode the will of people around him. And in Hitler’s case, it was a massive erosion of the state. But constantly repeating of the big lie and big statements over and over and over again, the independent people, independent judgement of people like judges and lawyers and doctors, people who have had supposedly education university degrees are all overcome. And if Manson was familiar with Hitler’s tactics, then it wouldn’t be that difficult to apply them to people who obviously did not have training and sophistication that these people did. Yet these people were overcome, yet we’re asked to assume that my client did not have the training and the will and the background to withstand that and therefore act independently. And I submit that whole thing is patently ridiculous.
Over a two-year period, Manson concentrating on a select number of people knowing where he was going, and the people were basically a group of followers and no definite philosophies, it’s conceivable that he would not be able to basically, you know, feel as well over there. And therefore, I think the whole concept of the D.A.’s argument of independent judgment is a sham in this case.
He didn’t have to. He programmed them and he sent them out. And what this institution is trying to do is deprogram and reprogram them ourselves. So we ourselves as this institution are engaged in the same type of practice as we’re now condemning Manson for. Or supposedly our purpose are better than his are. The point I’m trying to get at is that, you can’t say that he had independent will. I think it was clearly demonstrated, there was no independent will here.
Okay. I’d also like to point out the fact that our own society has said, if you kill somebody, that in and of itself is not inherently, morally wrong. If you do it with the State’s blessing, you get a medal for it. If you do it without the State’s blessing, you get punished for it. And people who have the training and education, when they come back from doing the State’s will have had trouble trying to differentiate between the two. So this is not an uncommon problem. In fact, the veteran’s hospitals are full of people who have had that problem. So our own society has set up a situation with that problem. I’m not trying to say it’s all society’s fault. I don’ t necessarily believe that. All I’m saying is, if you consider the facts and circumstances of a case and you throw in all the tangential and other factors that the District Attorney has included, you’ve got to consider that also.
The next point I’d like to make is, each trial was different. I’m sure different facts came out at the different trials. To say conclusively what happened, only one or two people can say that. That was the people who were actually there. The trial itself does not mean that everything is going to come out. Now, I’ve see trials myself where certain facts don’t come out because the parties do not wish them to come out for one reason or another. So therefore, I would tend to be inclined to think that the statements made by Miss Krenwinkel about what actually happened are more truthful than what the District Attorney said. I’d also like to point out that the District Attorney has a vested interest in making sure that this person does not get out, and therefore, their objectivity is somewhat less than absolute. Also we should not be concerned what the public says. I mean, if it’s a trial by public, let’s throw them out to the local mob like they did in the Roman times and actually tear them limb from limb and we can say oh, that’s too bad. So what the public is concerned about is not our function. We should consider first, what are the facts of the case, and then, has she rehabilitated. And if so, is it safe to let her out again? I think she’s tried to explain to you in her own way that, you know, she was rootless, drifting, she had no sense of purpose, she grew up with none. She was offered a sense of purpose. She was directed by a man who was probably good or an expert in the field. She was programmed as such. In the course of conduct that apparently - from what the District Attorney says, there’s no indication in her past that there’s any type of relation to what we’re talking about. There’s no evidence. She came from a middle class background, no indication at all of ideas, where they come from. Did they come from a spontaneous generation, somebody planted them in her mind. And basically at that time, she was an extension of somebody else.
The question now becomes, is that extension still there as far as the facts of the case are concerned. Again, without trying the case, and I imagine the transcripts of those trials would cover this entire desk and with room to spare. I’m not sure that the Board is inclined to go through them all. I think that we should basically, you know, what Miss Krenwinkel says is probably more accurate. So I’ll stop at that.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Well, you know, I don’t want you, Miss Krenwinkel, to lose sight of the fact that this is your hearing and there are statements made here by the parties to the hearing that you may agree or disagree with. And you may give testimony freely, you know, as I say, to the Panel and as candidly as you wish. And if you wish, in order for us to proceed in that manner, I’m going to formally swear you in and then you can testify under oath. You want to stand?
(Thereupon Inmate Patricia Krenwinkel was, by the Presiding Member, sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.)
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I do.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, is there anything that you wish to address, any comments that have been made by your counsel or Mr. Kay that you wish to allude to?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, it’s very hard -- it’s like, there was at least fifteen or sixteen things, statements that you made that I know is not true.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Address the Panel, Miss Krenwinkel.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I mean, that’s what’s very -- that’s what I’m finding difficult now. I mean, I feel like, am I to create a debate with this man on the evidence that he says that might have come out but evidence that he never asked me? It’s like, he made statements by Leslie. I’d like Leslie here because I didn’t tell Leslie to wipe the fingerprints off. Now, it would have to be a debate between me and Leslie on who’s telling the truth or what. See, I don’t understand that.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: You tell us what happened.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: All right.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Tell us what you did or did not do.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: All I can say, I did not inform Leslie to -- I mean, it’s difficult because there’s a whole lot of things, discrepancies in there. They’re all little and very minor. I just know that -- I know that things like, telling here to take the fingerprints. I didn’t tell Leslie that. So, Leslie will have to deal with that for herself. And why she said that, I don’t know. I know that like, when you say -- I did not know that night where I was going. We had never discussed in that family killing anyone really, as far as like anyone going out to kill someone. I had known there had been a murder of a Gary Hinman, but it was kept very quiet and I had no idea that what -- Mr. Kay makes sounds like there was these big times when people sat around and talked about killing. I was never there. So if they happened, I wasn’t there. And when you start, you know, a whole lot of -- I did not know that night until I was in the car. I was in taking care of the children at the time at -- when I was awakened in the night and I was told to go with Tex by Charlie. I got into the car with Tex and it wasn’t but way late down the road somewhere that I asked Tex what we were going to do. And it was when we were -- and for a long time he said nothing. And then eventually, and so we just gabbed and whatever and we drove. Eventually, when we went up Cielo Drive, Tex said that we were going to go in the house and kill everyone there. I had no idea where I was going. Yes, I followed directions from Tex from then on. But I did not know where I was going.
And then he made statements like, when we got back that evening, I didn’t make love with Tex. I don’t know where you got that from. You know, things like that that I’ve never known because, throughout the entire trial, so much was said that, by different people, that you’ve got contradictions from a whole lot of different people that said things. But I think you’ve got me confused with someone else. Yeah, you do. And I mean, it’s hard to explain.
The whole -- there is, I think, a hundred twenty-one volumes to the transcript of the case. So when someone goes to talk about it, there’s a million little things that come out, but a million little things, too, that were, in some way or another, rebuttaled or whatever. It’s really hard, I mean, I could probably sit and talk with Mr. Kay, but I didn’t think this was a trial. I mean, because there is a whole lot that was said.
At the time that I got on the witness stand, too, and the statements that I made, I don’t have a copy right now of my transcripts. I sent them out because they are so massive that I cannot keep them in my room. It’s impossible or I wouldn’t be living there. They take up an entire corner. So I don’t have them and I didn’t think that this was a trial, so I did not go through word for word. I would not mind going through whatever I said on the witness stand because I think it would be quite obvious that a whole lot of things that I said then were even deliberate lies that were set up to make certain things that, at that time I felt we wanted to say. And I think I Mr. Kay was even obvious then that we did do many things in a courtroom that we all did just at that time -- I can even say now, it was all just maybe Charlie decided that day we’d go in with an X on our head. Now, I don’t , you know -- so that at the time that even that I was on the witness stand and gave all my testimony, at that time of my testimony, I was not looking at -- I was expecting any day really for the world to come to an end at that point on the witness stand. I don’t think that, saying that I was then as I am today, I don’t think even you can say that, Mr. Kay. I don’t think I talk now like I did then. So I think you would have to even say there’s a little bit of a difference, and that my reasoning was at the same point that it is right now.
So a whole lot that’s said, I think, is just, I know I probably should have taken a pen because there was a whole lot of little things that I felt that the man said that are all just little incorrect things, but I don’t, you know, I don’t want to go into it.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Don’t lose sight of the purpose of this hearing. This is not a trial. It’s a hearing to determine whether you are suitable for parole. And you know, that is the purpose of this Panel and that is the purpose of this hearing, to make a determination as to whether you are suitable or unsuitable, and the factors that will help us to make that decision.
Now, on the preconviction factors, do you have anything else that you wish to add?
MR. GILBERT: No, sir.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, at this time, we will go into postconviction factors, Miss Krenwinkel, and Miss Rushen will chair that portion of the hearing dealing with postconviction factors.
Why don’t we take a five-minute recess.
(Thereupon a short recess was taken.)
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: The Panel has reconvened and all the original parties are back in the room. The time is 4:20 p.m. Counsel, do you have anything else you wish to add on preconviction factors?
MR. GILBERT: No.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: We will now go into, as we mentioned prior to the recess, postconviction factors with Miss Rushen being in charge of that portion of the hearing.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: All right. You came in, I believe, 4/28/1971; is that correct?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: And in summary, it seems as if you have not been a disciplinary problem. You have -- I am looking at the general chronos in the file, looking at 7/3/78. I will read into the record that quote,
“Patricia has shown an interest in the CDCI clerk position and from all indications, appears suitable for the job. She has presented no problem in the cottage and is disciplinary-free. Her willingness to help her peers is also noted. Subject also has necessary clerical skills and a good rapport with her peers.”
That speaks to your most recent, I believe, work chrono.
We also not a letter dated October 5, 1977 in which you were given an outstanding evaluation for work. And your Board report dated 5/19/78, and I will quote in full, starting with evaluation.
“Subject has been known to this writer as her counselor since February of 1977. Patricia has always displayed a mature attitude in dealing with her problems. She is considered an excellent worker in her assignment in the cafeteria. Her work reports indicate dependable and she gets along well with staff and her peers. Subject has continued to express an interest in her education and plans to continue next school semester. She has completed several courses with a high grade average. Recently, subject has expressed some interest in involving herself in the now defunct institution paper and has hopes of reviving it. Subject has remained discipline free since last seen by the Board and has received commendations for volunteer work in the cafeteria. Subject’s plans for future parole are to parole out of State with her supporting father who visits on a weekly basis and is near retirement and expresses desire to help Pat make a new life for herself.”
That will be more properly entered under Mr. Del Pesco’s discussion. But I just read the whole thing. And that is signed, submitted by J. Dowell, D as in David, o-w-e-l-l, CC-I, Cottage Latham B.
That is your work record and your institutional adjustment in terms of attitude. We do have several psychiatric reports that are in your file. Looking at the May, 1978, looking at the conclusions, and these are by Dr. J.F. Roh, R-o-h. He states, quote.
“Subject show no manifestation nor symptomatology of mental health disorder. She showed symptomatology of drug abuse and drug experimentation. There was no history clarifying the means of her drug abuse, influence was related to her criminal behavior in the past. She showed moderate improvement in this institution since the undersigned saw her for the first time in 1971. She was polite and cooperative. She answered all the question without hesitation. Her continuation of her psychiatric improvement cannot be answered. It would probably be influenced by her activities, vocation involvement, education, and the nature of her interpersonal relationship. This subject should not be considered for transfer to the Department of Health under Section 2684 of the Penal Code. Her violence potential outside a controlled environment in the past was increased by history. Her violence potential in this institution since 1971 appeared to be below average. She was thirty years old, five feet five inches tall, she weighed one hundred eighteen pounds. Her weight appeared to be stable. She was alert. She was in good contact with reality. She was oriented as to the date, time and person. She appeared to have accurate information about major events in this country. She showed no evidence of thought disorder or disorder or affect. Her abstractions, her concept formation, her recent and remote memory were appropriate and accurate.”
End of quote. What I would like for you to address yourself to are the following issues:
Number one, what do you feel you have done here that has prepared you -- and I’m not talking about vocationally now, mentally, to enter into society and participate? That’s number one. And number two, what are some of your feelings about what you have done, the effect on others, and how would you go about trying to make any kind of restitution?
MR. GILBERT: Before we answer that, can I add one or two comments for the record?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Sure.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Your father comes to see you regularly; is that correct?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, he does.
MR. GILBERT: You have to speak up.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, he does.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Are you close to him now?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. When this incident started, had you basically alienated from him?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: I take it, since you’ve been in here, you’ve reached some type of understanding with your father?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I have.
MR. GILBERT: And you think you’ve changed, or you think he’s changed?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think we’ve both grown.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Now, wasn’t there, at one time, some type of lock-down or a work slowage by most of the people in the institution?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, there was.
MR. GILBERT: And when was that?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was probably a month and a half ago, I guess.
MR. GILBERT: What happened?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, there were some major issues that the inmate felt could only be -- that the only way that attention could be brought to those problems was by a sit-down at which quite a few, about four hundred, I think, showed up initially for this. And the ADM responded and they gave us some feedback on some issues. And eventually, ADM made their last statement to how they would react to these issues at which time they asked us to leave. And two hundred women, actually one hundred ninety-nine, remained after that time, because they felt that the ADM had not answered them the way that they had wished. They had not gotten the response they wanted. So they went ahead and they pushed the issue. And after they pushed it, there ended up being a lock-down. But I left the sit-down before the lock-down occurred. So it was during that time, I worked at the institution.
MR. GILBERT: All right. Basically, they excepted you from the lock-down?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah, I was not in the lock-down.
MR. GILBERT: Did you come and actually work at one of the places around here?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I was working in the cafeteria.
MR. GILBERT: So during this lock-down, they basically relied on you to continue on your normal functions?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right.
MR. GILBERT: Did you, in fact, continue on what you had actually done?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Were you cooperating with them in all ways?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, trying to feed all the people that were locked in.
MR. GILBERT: Did you get any type of assistance or commendation for that?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I did.
MR. DEL PESCO: That’s documented in the file.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Now, the two questions that were asked, the first one is, why do you feel, how are you prepared mentally to enter into society now? Is that a correct phrasing of it?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: I wonder if you could address your answer to the Board in answer to that question?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I feel that a lot of self-evaluation which has been done primarily by myself and also at the different -- at the different people that I have met here, different staff. Some have been staff. Some have been inmates. I think participation with just the people in general in different areas, in different situations, and working conditions or in playing ball or in doing different -- depending on each situation, I think, each thing has been in some way, some way that I have used it to maybe for self-growth or come to understand a whole lot of different people and the way that they -- different beliefs and the values they have. A great majority of it, I don’t agree with or do not believe, but it gives me a chance to kind of have --it’s just interaction with an incredible variety that you find, I think, connected with the penitentiary. It seems to me that, at first, being isolated, there was only -- the only contact I was given was just that which was allowed to come in which would be either family or certain staff that, at that time, they had picked to even come back and work in that unit. And for about four and a half years, everything was fairly well constructed on different certain people, and the certain -- certain people, certain values that were allowed in. Because even to different correspondence and things that were not allowed or whatever at first, it was extremely tight. And the contact was extremely limited.
It was certain people. One of the people who I spent quite a few hours talking with at that time from SSU, one of the people that I enjoyed conversation with, I actually found extremely stimulating and was very helpful was Dr. Flanigan that was a psychiatrist. At the time, he was working as a medical doctor. And Dr. Vines at that time was the chief psychiatrist who I was seeing also. But I found Dr. Flanigan to be -- we used to spend hours when he would have the available time just commenting and talking. It was through a participation which, at that time, it was very structured and there was not so many that I’d find -- these people that would give me something to start -- to start looking at. A whole new -- many new ideas. When I came out on campus and started living, well, first I went to PTU. And PTU was dealing with a lot of the women who are in some way designated as having some mental problems and emotional problems.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Why did you go there? Why were you assigned there?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I was assigned there for security housing. At that time they decided that PTU was the next secure unit. And I was not put over there for psychiatric reasons which made it kind of a strange situation too, because I had just come out of isolation from SSU into PTU. And the first women that I had, I wasn’t exactly sure on, I mean -- for myself you can’t -- it’s strange because, these women, I did not really know entirely had as many emotional problems until I left PTU. Many of the women that I dealt with in PTU for a long while, I did not really come to realize I had maybe some of the problems that they had. Because in that surrounding again, it was extremely encased in a more -- there was not that much input from other areas. Again, you’re kind of confined. So you deal with a certain group of people and a certain group of staff that again are usually trained particularly to deal with PTU. And I’ve noticed there is differences like being from SSU in an isolation setting to PTU which is a psychiatric setting to being on a regular compound where there’s much more freedom and there’s much more of a variety of people, and you have a much more, a large change of staffs. So you’re always dealing with a different kind of person.
I go to a visiting room where, again, I was just in touch with people and there are visitors and that kind of thing. It was like an entire change from the time like, SSU where everyone was confined, even visiting into that unit. So I think it would be mostly in the participation with other people that, you go through a tremendous amount of growth and understanding about many, many people and their problems and their lives, and where they come from, where they’re going, and where they’ve -- you know, I don’t know.
It’s hard to say because, each person that I have met somewhere, you know, that I’ve come close to has left some kind of impression or something that I’ve found. I’ve learned to deal with a whole lot of situations that I don’t think normally anyone would ever have to deal with outside of an institutional setting that I think are extremely stressful. And that at times, you know, I feel my own aggravation with this, but somehow you learn to handle it. It becomes mostly, I think as time goes by, it becomes a factor of dealing with a certain amount of stress on the fact that you are lacking certain freedoms. Even to the point of, at night if you want to read a book, if the women are loud in the halls, you’re not going to read that book. There’s nothing you can do about it unless you have ear plugs. And even that sometimes may not stop the noise. So you deal with a situation where you go through your internal changes and external changes and just relieving the situation with an extreme variety of people.
And I think in that, you learn to, I think, coping. I think you learn patience. You learn tolerance. You learn how to show, I think, all the variety of emotions that any human being could have. You get hot. You get tired. You get nasty with somebody at times and you respond back and forth. And you use your sense, say, well now, this is cray. Why should you and I argue over this. And you go through those points.
You have, I think, every emotion possible is at one time felt sometime. You make friends and you lose them. And I think that just makes you equipped to handle any kind -- I mean, I don’t believe that the situation in dealing with people here is that much different than it could be beyond here. I think it’s just --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Let’s move then to any thoughts you’ve given about restitution?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, there is no way that I can bring life to those people that are now dead. I don’t think that -- I know that I have like, losses, but I may never have money that I could pay back. I don’t ever imagine that I will have millions of dollars for anything. I have never -- my skills, it’s possible to be a secretary. I don’t think that kind of employment or even as maybe going further into some kind of even field-like money, monetary restitution could ever be made, because I don’t ever foresee having millions of dollars. Because I know that I have those lawsuits so there’s nothing I can do about that.
You know, the only thing that I can feel is by -- the only thing that I could possibly do is try to live my life daily as best that I can and try never to bring harm to anyone again. I don’t know exactly what you’re asking.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: My point is, the purpose of the question was to just see if you had done any thinking about what I owe and what can I do. And of course, we’re aware that all the money in the world wouldn’t. But sometimes, people do think about that, think about, as you say, you will live your life in a certain kind of way. And the point of the question was just to see if you had done any thinking in that line as to it.
Okay. I have one last one. And that is, when you first came in, looking at the cumulative summary, one would get the impression, looking at the cumulative summary and to some of your remarks, and looking at the probation officer’s report that, you felt yourself pretty alienated. And you made remarks about the general society and so forth. What comments would you have on society today?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I think there’s a whole lot of areas that a whole lot of people are going specific work in to change that which they feel is right or wrong. But I think there’s -- I mean, I definitely don’t feel that everything is perfect. I don’t think society has come to you know, to absolutely all of its perfection. I think there’s a lot that needs to be done. And I feel there’s a lot of people that are going extremely constructive ways of working and changing. I feel I have been kind of -- I was lucky. I was introduced to some people in this institution that came in here with a college program from Santa Cruz University. And it was a Ph.D program. And each of the people that were a part of that program had each picked different points that each one in that program was not a specific one that everyone had to do their dissertations or their thesis or anything on a certain point. Each one was into different things. Each person had a different field. And they were people that were very interested in, some politics, some economy, some more the education and new ways and means of developing finer and better education, people involved in ecology. It was kind of interesting.
In this Ph.D program, I met a lot of people who I found to be extremely exciting because they are very aware people, things that are very involved in a lot of thing. And to me, I think that’s exciting when communities are starting to show or working towards concern, and I don’t know I mean, it’s a hard question because I’m trying to just even try to find points. Because I mean it’s a massive society and there’s a lot of areas.
MR. GILBERT: Can I ask her a couple of questions?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Have you been to school since you’ve been in this place?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I have, college classes.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Now, did you have a high school diploma before you came in here?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Now, have you taken as much schooling as they have to offer here?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I can go on and take some more classes.
MR. GILBERT: But you have been involved in a college program here?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. I have about thirty-six credits, somewhere around that, from the classes that I’ve been taking.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. What type of classes have you been taking?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I’ve taken what -- at times, I didn’t have much choice because they don’t have a huge variety. But I’ve taken Science and quite a few classes in English, Psychology, mostly the basics. First usually the junior college, I’m in the first year of college classes that they offer. And they’re mostly your basics that cover all -- Sociology --
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Now, do you have a particular degree in mind that you’d like to try for?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I’ve already talked to some counselors her and they’ve already told me I would have a certain problem in that I could gather up sixty credits here which is enough for your first two years of a college if you were going towards a Bachelor of Science degree which is what I would like to go towards in Earth Sciences which is a fairly new field and it falls under different titles of different universities in California now do have these classes. But I could take up my first sixty credits here, but it wouldn’t get me specialized to go any further with that kind of training. All it could do is give me my A.A. or just use sixty credits for a Bachelor of Science. That’s as far as this educational department goes to. I can go on further with some correspondence.
MR. GILBERT: Basically, you’re shooting for a B.A.?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Bachelor of Science degree.
MR. GILBERT: B.A. Do you have any skills at the present time?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Secretarial skills.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. Now, if you were to get out, would your intentions be to find a job?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Uh-huh.
MR. GILBERT: I can’t hear you.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: And what type of job would you be looking at?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: That’s into the next phase.
MR. GILBERT: Okay, fine.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: We’re going to end this phase in just one moment here. I’ll ask the Panel members if they have any questions.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Yes. Now, you’ve become an artist since you went into the institution?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I’ve become what?
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Have you done any art work?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I have. I paint. For a while, Mr. Casey that used to be the head of the art department came over to SSU. And at that time I learned screen printing and oil painting and worked with acrylics which is just a different form of pain from Mr. Casey. And I do a lot of handwork and different macrame. There was a woman that came over from the occupational therapy department that got me into different crewel work and that kind of thing. I’ve done pottery. That was when I was in PTU. I was taught how to do pottery. I’ve learned quite a few different artistic things to do. I mean, macrame, and so I mean a lot of that. But I guess there’s a lot of that done in the institution.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: What are your hobbies?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: My favorite hobby now is, I’ve been teaching myself how to play the guitar. So I do that mostly now. Oil painting is hard because we don’t have an art department out here on campus. So I’ve given up the oil painting and I’ve been teaching myself how to play the guitar. And I try to get out and play tennis. It’s been kind of hot.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: You know, in the documentation, there’s an item that you had one painting, you and someone else --
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Leslie.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Yes, Van Houten, that you sold or were going to sell or was valued at $1500? That’s the figure that’s stated.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I think they were talking about a piece of sewing that -- Leslie and I combined our efforts in an embroidery piece. It’s a six foot dragon. And when it was completed, my father took it and got it insured. And they insured it for a $1,000. It’s quite massive and it took us about a year and a half to complete when we were in SSU. It’s quite a beautiful piece. But it’s all embroidery and it was insured. Most likely, I think that was mentioned at one time and a couple of paintings Leslie and I did were in an art show here. And I have sold art work through the hobby craft department.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, what is your major goal in college?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I would like --
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: What would be your major field?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I would like to find some way to work with parks, possible parks, recreation and forestry department.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: I have nothing further.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Mr. Del Pesco?
MR. DEL PESCO: Yes, I think several points have been already covered by your replies and also by counsel’s comments. But briefly, as I see it, there’s already mention in the Board report of 5/19/78 that you intend to settle out of State on relase with your father, Joseph Krenwinkel who’s in Playa Del Rey. I don’t know what the purpose of this is. I was wondering if it might be to start with an anonymity rather than California where your name may be quite familiar?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. I spoke with my counselor at one time and I told him, as of today, I have never given an interview. I have not ever at any time really tried to make myself public in any way. I have not spoken with any one of the press at any time. All right, so what I’m saying is that, I myself had asked him if I was able to leave, I would personally like to change my name and leave, you know. I don’t see any reason to try to draw attention to something such as this case with myself. I don’t see how that would be of any value.
MR. DEL PESCO: Didn’t I read that you wrote a book?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, the most that I have is that I contributed some poetry that had nothing to do with this case to an anthology of certain requirements --
MR. DEL PESCO: It had nothing to do with the offenses or offense?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Nothing. No, it was just poetry.
MR. DEL PESCO: Well, with that reply, I needn’t pursue it, then. It also notes that you have had some FLU visits I imagine that is family, right?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right, family.
MR. DEL PESCO: With your father? And you’re in close contact with him? And there was mention of an aunt and a cousin that are supportive in the community.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. Sandy Reeves. She lives in San Francisco, so it’s hard for her to get down very often.
MR. DEL PESCO: I see. And then, of course, you’ve in part already answered or possibly have answered what I was wondering about when I read the various places in the file that you were interested, I think, at the last Board appearance, something about entering the cooking field. Then it mentions, you’ve had secretarial skills. And now, we hear that you’re interested in doing park work or getting out in recreation. So you perhaps have already answered it. I also not that somewhere, you mention that you were hoping to proceed with an MA degree, again -- is that the same field?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I’ve just been basically, and it’s pretty continuous there, because the first program that I ever got out of SSU from ws education. And that’s all the way through. And it wasn’t until after an incident, after the incident when they arrested me on supposed knowledge and possession that they stopped my education at that point through ICC which is the Inmate Classification Committee that I go to. And they told me at that time I could not go back to school. And that has been a program I’ve been involved in for about four years. So I just, you know, at that point, that was rather depressing. And so it has been until recently that hey have lifted again and decided taht I could continue on and go back to classes. That’s what basically I have been involved in since I’ve been in.
MR. DEL PESCO: Have I covered it all now? Is there anything else that isn’t in here? I can appreciate you not firming up absolute plans, you know, as someone with a parole date might have. But as of now, is this sum and subtance of what has occurred?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. DEL PESCO: Panel, is there any further questions on the release program?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Nothing further.
MR. DEL PESCO: Counselor?
MR. GILBERT: You now have plans to live with your parents?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, not, you know, not really. My father said he would be helpful in getting me started at any time as far as, you know, monetarily. And we might live together for a while. But I know that I would never -- I don’t believe it would be fair to him or myself to say I would be living with my father.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: I’d like to ask you one thing. You know, it sounds to me like, you know, I don’t mean to be critical. But it sounds to me like you’re very idealistic in what you have learned academically, you know, and what you have learned about your philosophy and in discussing items and so forth almost as if there is a lack of candor there or a lack of practical knowledge as to faults with this order, which maybe is not existent. Maybe you’ll find that, as you get out on the outside, you cannot get a position that you had planned in recreation or forestry or whatever. And you may have to do something very menial and very difficult ath is not in keeping with your obvious talents.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, for the last year and a half, I’ve been working pots and pans in VC. That’s been my job. And I can do that on the outside. I could wash pots and pans. As a matter of fact, I was told by someone that they have good pay for people that wash pots and pans. I mean, I don’t feel that there is little that I could not do. I mean I think there is, as far as jobs, I don’t have any, you know, specific field that I’m really good in. But I don’t think, if it was necessary to get a job in order to eat, I would take what I could do. And I could do -- I could dig a ditch, you know.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: I see. Well, that’s what I wanted.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I enjoy pots and pans.
MR. GILBERT: You work in the kitchen now?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I just got changed.
MR. GILBERT: What are you doing now?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Now, I’m working for Mr. Duenas as his clerk.
MR. GILBERT: How long did you work in the pots and pans?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: One year and two months.
MR. GILBERT: What have they got you doing now?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, now, I’m typing.
MR. GILBERT: Okay. So if you were to go out, you could either work in a kitchen or you could work as a secretary or clerical staff of some sort?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.
MR. GILBERT: Would you plan on going back to school if you got out?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, that’s what I would like to do.
MR. GILBERT: What’s your field? What subject would you be interested in?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I’d still have to work right now on some of my basics. But I am pretty in concrete on going into some of the sciences.
MR. GILBERT: So what you’re saying is, right now, the only marketable skill you’ve go is either a secretary clerk of a dishwasher of some sort. Would you be willing to work at those occupations while you went to school?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I would.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I have on other question before summation.
You know, when you look back at the crimes, I think I would characterize them as extraordinary. There are several things in there, of course, that plays a lot of responsibility on this Panel. And I think maybe we need to hit on some of those.
One, we have a dual purpose here. We have to protect society. And SB42 speaks to punishment. And we have to look at mitigation, aggravation. And then, in some ways, when we talk about suitability, we have to really address ourselves to, for lack of a better word, the odds of something happening again. In trying to do that, one of the things that weighs very heavily with us is, do we dare risk? Okay? And when we say, “do we dare risk,” we have to go back to what has been done. Now, I’m saying all of that because I want you to -- you don’t have to answer in, you know, a long response. But what I’m trying to say is that, when we start thinking about a parole date for you, we are going to have to start thinking about what has happened that we can risk turning a person loose in a society who can kill without passion. By that I mean, you don’t know the person. They haven’t done anything to you; that you can kill at the on the order of another person, if you know, if we can accept that. You know, can we really risk that? And I think, I don’t think we’ve talked enough about that. And I feel we need to. Any comments about any of that?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I’m trying to -- I don’t know any way to, you know, on exactly like -- I understand that, for you to consider a parole for me, it would be very difficult. But I don’t know what I can say to say that I know it would never happen again, that I would not take somebody’s life. I don’t know. You know, I know that inside myself, but there’s no way that I can impart that to you through any words that I may use. I don’t --
MR. GILBERT: Can I add something? I think a possible answer to your question is, what has not happened other than what has happened. She’s been in here now for over seven years. It’s been a number of, just about everybody in this institution has had an opportunity to get involved in some type of disciplinary action. Just recently, there was some type of disturbance over a grievance of some sort. A person who supposedly walked into this institution was a radical of sorts. I mean, it’s clear from what the facts were, you’re dealing with a radical or a reactionary, and somebody who is off the deep end and who is expressing it in the form of violence. You know, up against the wall, pigs that type of thing. That type of personality would express itself in hostility toward the institution which is a classic example of society, and I suppose all its faults or some type of disciplinary problem. And I think that the fact that there hasn’t been any of that is an indication of some of the changes.
Okay. A person who is the type of person who seems to be the kind of person who would commit this type of act would be a rebel, would be flaunting authority, would be antagonistic toward the people in this institution, would be noncooperative, would probably do anything they could to make this place miserable because they believe what it was. What do you have over a seven-year period? That’s how you can judge whether or not you have a radical here or you have somebody who maybe you can trust.
Okay. There’s no disciplinary action. There was one incident that turned out she was not involved in. In fact, as short a time as a month and a half ago, there was apparently a sit-down demonstration in this institution. And yet the people who run this place that know her on a day-to-day basis who have enough trust in her, they continued to exempt her from the limitations they placed the other people in and allowed her to continue on with the work and help feed people.
So I think you have first, in the absence of conflict and the absence of bad behavior, you have an indication of how she’s actually going to behave in a situation and how she’s changed. Secondly, I think there’s a certain type of trust that’s been shown by the people of this institution in that respect.
And I have one last point. That is, I’ve talked to one or two of the people who had involvement with Miss Krenwinkel over the last couple of years. And their basic feeling is that, she’s been straight. She’s not playing the games. She’s not doing this so she can get out. What she says and the way she puts herself forward is the real her. And so I think, by the absence of some of the signs that seem to be prevalent and the type of personality we think we’re dealing with, I think that’s a good indication.
I’ve had a number of clients who have been the type of person you’ve been talking about. They’ve been sullen, rebellious. They’ve constantly been in trouble. Their files are thick with problems they’ve had in the lock-downs, locked up, isolation. You know, where is that here? If we were dealing with the type of person that supposedly you’re talking about, then there would be some indication of it. And there is no indication at all that she’s been other than a model prisoner except the one incident and she was found not to be involved in that. So perhaps that’s a least a partial answer to your question.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Thank you, Counsel. I don’t have anything else.
MR. DEL PESCO: Well, it’s kind of along the same lines as the question that was asked by Mrs. Rushen. Counsel, from what you said, you gave me another thought. So I’ll try to combine it. The act in itself or acts obviously, I think we’re all in agreement, certainly shocked the public conscience. The behavior is inconceivable to the general member of the public as to how these things can happen. You conjure up this person that’s a rebel and not getting in trouble in the institution. But I note that the history prior to this incident, criminal history is nil. I don’t believe there’s another conviction. I think there was an arrest for furnishing a seventeen-year old with LSD or something like that. But I don’t believe there was a disposition shown or no conviction. We’re dealing with a person who was twenty-two years old when this happened. So let’s see if I can say this simply so I can put it in the form of a question. How, then, can we be assured that such an irrational act -- as I mentioned that shocked the public conscience and is taken out of context so to speak -- how can we be assured that a set of circumstances wouldn’t again arise that might bring similar behavior about?
MR. GILBERT: By the very nature of the question, there’s only one answer to it. That is, there’s no way.
MR. DEL PESCO: Would you care to answer? I was directing it to Miss Krenwinkel. Would you care to answer that?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: That’s, again, a question that --
MR. DEL PESCO: I’m not looking for an academic or an intellectual answer. I just want a gut level answer. How would you feel through your thinking, how could you --
INMATE KRENWINKEL: There’s no way I could ever be put in that kind of position again, because I know that I can’t. That’s the only answer I can give you. I know myself. I know all that I want out of life which is very simple, and that’s just to be able to live, you know. I’m not looking for any great answers to any major problems in this world or anything else. I’m trying to learn to deal with me and to get by every day on the simple things that I need to get done, to live in comfort or whatever interests, learning to read the books I want or watch the TV program that I want to. There is no way, and I know that after all this time and going through the different changes within myself and realizing it and seeing all of this, after looking back at myself and all those things, that I could ever go back and repeat it. And it could not happen again. I can see what you’re asking, interests, you know. You could read through the reports like in ‘71. You said you didn’t want an academic answer. Well, that’s a question where there is no -- I don’t see that there is an absolute, concrete answer I can give you that, outside if just what I learned from myself and asking you to give it back.
MR. DEL PESCO: One more question. I heard you talking about your relationship with Dr. Flanigan as being productive. Were you ever involved in formal psychotherapy in the institutions?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: You mean counseling? I had, Dr. Vines used to come over to SSU weekly, and then that ceased. And then, after leaving SSU, not really again. You know, you see a psyche one a year. And Dr. Flanigan was just someone that worked in the medical department that we used to just talk.
MR. DEL PESCO: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, do we have any comments? I know we pretty well entered into the area of parole and preparation. Is there anything else along that line that you wish to talk to?
MR. DEL PESCO: I don’t have anything.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: All right. I just wanted to make sure that we had all of that. Counsel, do you have anything that you wish to cover, anything else you wish to cover or parole plans?
MR. GILBERT: Well, of course, I would have something I could say concerning this. It’s very difficult to draw specialized programs and say, I will do this, I will do that without a date. She’s obviously without one. The only date that I’ve see is the one last year with her minimum release date. So it’s difficult to say for sure, I want to do this with the ultimate goal of becoming -- or whatever. Because you know, one word from you and the whole thing is struck down the tubes. The only thing I can say is that, I think she’s done what she has to or what’s available to get her started. I look at it this way. You’ve got a limited education program and many people don’t take advantage of it. She has. You’ve got a limited amount of skills and training which are available at this institution, menial, not intellectual skills or profession skills, but basically clerical and that type of thing. She has taken advantage of that. I grant you, being potscrubber may not be the most glamorous thing in the world, but as least it put bread on the table. And having clerical skills, there’s a need for that. So what are we talking about? We’re talking about person who has had the educational opportunity and availed herself of it, who had the opportunity to pick up some type of productive skill and who did take advantage of that, who when she goes out, will not automatically get on some welfare role and wind back up in the situation where she was, but get a job. She’s got a father who’s supportive and willing to help her as well as a parole officer. She’s got a situation where she has some type of outside support she can go to. She can continue her education. She can find a job while she’s finding a decent goal to go to. So she’s got that.
On the positive-negative side, we’ve got the fact that she could have availed herself of all the vices that seem to habit these types of institutions. She could have gotten herself into trouble whereby the file would be replete with disciplinary problems. She has not. So by doing and not doing, I think this lady has set herself into a position now where she could say, okay, I had seven years to think about what’s going on. My head had to get straightened out. I talked to psychologists and psychiatrists and I think I know where I’m going now. I didn’t before. I know what I did was wrong, and I’m doing my damnest to make sure it’s not going to happen again. I have the opportunity to continue with my old pattern of life and I have not done that, both with the staff, as far as interactions with the staff, as far as interactions with the inmate here. There is a positive way to go. She has educational abilities. She has gone ahead and she’s developed some art work, the limited ability that’s available here; some poetry with the limited ability that’s available; some practical skills, typing, secretarial work, clerical work, manual labor, whatever. She has done that. And then, she has contacted and made peace with her father. They both have changed. But I know the father has, but I tend to think that she’s probably changed more than he would have changed. But basically,she was alienated from him because of her attitudes. And her attitudes have changed and her and her father have gotten back together again. So we have a person that has at least made an effort with the limited facilities that are available here and the limited material available. There’s always a possibility that one word and whamo, she’s going to be here forever, to try to put the past behind her and to at least start down the road for a productive life. And I think part of that could necessarily be the psychological impact of her name change to put the past behind her so it won’t be constantly coming up and haunting her, either through the media or through associations. People will say oh, I remember that took place back when. You can’t wipe out the past, I realize that. And you’re right. It was an unusual offense to say the least. And it generated a lot of publicity and a lot of feelings on all sides. She received threats on her life while she was here. There are people like Chief Davis who are absent her conduct. So it was not all one-sided. There were reactions on both sides.
Okay. Now, what can you do? You can’t resurrect the dead. The best you can do is to try to make of your lives the type of behavior that won’t happen again, and perhaps, by your conduct, you can, in some way, atone for what you’ve done in the past. And I think she has done that. And I think now, after all this time, the time is now to stop rehashing the dead and let them have their peace. Let them lie and let us see what we can do to build a future so that this doesn’t happen again.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Now, Mr. Kay, are you prepared to make what would be your closing statements?
MR. KAY: Yes. I don’t have too many additions to what I’ve already said. I think that what’s been brought up, especially in the last two categories kind of points out the problem that you have to deal with. If Miss Krenwinkel was someone who had, was mentally ill or had a back background or something like that, I think you could understand a little bit better what went on. Why did she do this? But she’s not that type of person. She didn’t have mental problems. She wasn’t raised in a life of crime, so to speak. She made her decision. She didn’t have to join the Manson family. She didn’t have to sit there and listen to what Manson was saying and go along with it. Nobody forced her to participate in these murders and she’s been held fully responsible for all of the murders. As I said before, this is the first hearing that I’ve attended. I don’t know if you’ve had other hearings where the D.A.’s have attended. I tried to find somebody from my office who has attended a hearing and I couldn’t find anybody. I think, we don’t appear on every hearing. It’s unusual. And I hope this conveys our concern about this case, not just Miss Krenwinkel but, of course, Miss Atkins and, if Mr. Manson has a parole hearing, I intend to appear on that, too. I mean, we have a great deal of interest in this case, in the participants. And in Miss Krenwinkel especially today, she knew better. She knew better than to do what she did.
I find it interesting about her interest in earth sciences. Now, just as a side, I’m sure you’re well aware that the members of the Manson family, that’s kind of the current thing. Sandy Good, a member of the family was sentenced to fifteen years in Federal prison for sending death threats to corporate executives because they were polluting the environmentnt. Charles Manson, whenever he talks to the press now, all he’ll talk about is the environment and people polluting the earth and how terrible they are. I find it interesting that that’s Miss Krenwinkel’s interest. I don’t know if there’s any connection between them or if she arrived at this interest on her own or if she’s aware that this is kind of the family program now. But it is at least Manson’s program and Sandy Good’s program.
I think the letters from Chief Davis and Chief Gates -- he wasn’t chief when he wrote the letter, but there is a letter from him -- and from Sheriff Pitchess and from Steve Trott who is the Chief Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County, I think, points out the interest that we have in this case and in not seeing Miss Krenwinkel released into the community. I have nothing else to add.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Counsel, closing?
MR. GILBERT: Just two points. Okay. First about the common interest. Sandra Good and Manson are interested in earth sciences. So is President Carter. I mean, does that mean that he’s part of the Manson family also? Because he is also interested in pollution. A lot of people are interested in pollution. I mean, it’s a hot topic, that in and of itself. This, again, goes to my second point. And that is, the State in the form of the prosecution will not let the people forget that they were part of the Manson family. And it doesn’t matter if you try to break away. You will not be allowed, not by Manson, but by the State, by Chief Davis, by the District Attorney’s office, you will not be allowed to forget that you were part of the Manson family. And everything you do is because you’re a part of the Manson family. Because you’re interested in ecology, that’s a part of the Manson family. Because you’re interested in earth sciences, you’re part of the Manson family. It doesn’t matter. It’s guilt by association. It’s as simple as that. You were part of the Manson family once. You will never be allowed to forget that. If you have an independent interest, that doesn’t matter. It’s because of somebody else in some part of the Manson family at one time thought about it, that means that you’re still interested in the Manson family. Don’t you think we’ve had enough of this? It’s been almost eight years now.
Okay. The incident took place eight years ago, and they won’t allow anybody to forget it. Now, if she has made an honest effort to get away from the Manson family, will she be allowed to? Or will she now be inseparably linked to him forever and ever simply because something happened a long time ago.
I guess what the Board should decide is, is there an honest effort to break away? Is there an attempt to create a life of your own, independent, put that in the past. I guess that’s the question. That’s all I have.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: I would like to say, there’s only one thing I just want to make clear, I think mostly with Mr. Kay, because he comes out with the attitude that I have said that I’m not responsible for those deaths. I am. I’m not saying I’m not. You know, I’m not saying that I didn’t, when Charlie and I started on the road in September, yes, I chose to go with him just like I chose to get up and fix myself eggs in the morning when I’d eat breakfast. Those choices I did make. I mean, I’m not saying that I am innocent by being completely, you know, this way or that. Yes, I take responsibility for those actions. I’m not trying to say I’m all innocent and please blame everybody, because I am guilty of that which I did. I know. I did it. I am guilty. I’m not saying I didn’t do it.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Anybody here have anything else to offer?
MR. DEL PESCO: Nothing further.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I don’t have anything.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Staff, do you have anything to add?
MR. DUENAS: No, I don’t.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Then at this time, we will recess and make a decision.
(Thereupon the room was cleared and the hearing of the Community Release Board was recessed for deliberation by the Board.)
-- oOo --
RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS
-- oOo --
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Let the record show that all parties are returned to the room. The panel is again in session. The time is approximately 6:04 p.m. and we’ve made a unanimous decision. The Panel finds you unsuitable, Miss Krenwinkel, for parole due to the gravity of the offense and all of the total circumstances involved in the offenses.
The subsequent actions of yourself and your crime partners in the act shocked the conscience of the community and of the public and all concerned persons.
The Panel notes the excessive mutilation of the victims. The victims were unknown to you and your crime partners. It does appear that you killed on orders or directions of another person, that the victims were selected at random. The Panel noted a high degree of callousness evidenced by many factors, including the fact that you and your crime partners were able to consume a meal at the residence after the murder of the LaBiancas while, of course, the two victims had been stabbed to death and were still at the scene.
Now, the Panel commends your efforts at rehabilitation and all of the things that you have done and the progress that you have made within the institution for preparing yourself, and the favorable reports that you have received. But the bizarre nature of the offenses including the motivation for the acts which defies understanding creates too great a risk to the safety and the health and the welfare of the public to such an extent that, at this time, we cannot project a date for you.
Does the Panel have any additional comments?
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I don’t have any.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Mr. Del Pesco?
MR. DEL PESCO: I have nothing further.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Counselor, Miss Krenwinkel, do you have anything to say or ask?
MR. GILBERT: No.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.
MR. KAY: I just have a question. What’s the next step? When will be the next time that she will be eligible for a hearing?
MR. GILBERT: Sixty days.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: No.
MR. GILBERT: Pursuant to Section 3041.7 of the Penal Code, request is not made for a rehearing.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I believe that the new law -- are you quoting from the new law? The July 1st law?
MR. GILBERT: Well, unless there’s been a change, according to the notes that I have, this is effective 1978. I don’t know if it’s a new law.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: What’s the number of the bill? No, the bill? What’s the number of the bill?
MR. GILBERT: Effective July 29, 1977 operative July 1st, 1977.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: It’s my understanding, and of course you’ll have to research it, Counselor. It’s my understanding that the bill that permitted counsel at the first hearing took out the rehearing part. Now, I may be wrong. See, prior to today and prior to the first, she would have had a lifer hearing without counsel. And within sixty days, she could have appeared with counsel.
MR. GILBERT: According to this thing, unless legal counsel is required by formal revision of the law, a person designated by the Department of Corrections shall be present to ensure that all facts relevant to the decision be presented including necessary --
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: I think you’re quoting from the old law.
MR. GILBERT: I’m quoting from 3041.5 which is the prisoner’s rights.
MR. KAY: The law might have been changed.
MR. GILBERT: That’s very possible. Okay. To answer his question, then, either the law says that she has a right to a rehearing or, if there’s no rehearing, or if that’s been taken out by the new rules which this is the latest that I’ve go, then I guess the next step would be some type of administrative hearing, annual administrative hearing.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Every year, she’s entitled to a hearing.
MR. GILBERT: Or there will be some sort of a legal action through the courts.
BOARD MEMBER RUSHEN: Right.
MR. GILBERT: So, I guess the next step for us to do is to decide whether or not this is operational. Now, the way I read this thing, you’re right. There was no attorney present at the first hearing. And then, that was being changed to add provisions for attorneys. But we’ll have to find that out. This is effective. This is the latest one I’ve got.
PRESIDING MEMBER DE LEON: Any additional comments? This hearing is now terminated. It is noted the time is now 6:10 p.m.
(Thereupon the hearing before the Community Release Board was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.)